1. Technical Field
The present invention relates in general to golf games, and in particular to a golf driving range having an apparatus for identifying a player who makes a hole-in-one. Still more particularly, the present invention relates to a method and apparatus for identifying a golf game player that makes a hole-in-one by remotely retrieving an identifiable ball associated with such a golf game player.
2. Description of the Related Art
Golfing has become an increasingly popular sport in the last few years, perhaps because the game involves an interesting mix of skill and luck. Because of the skill and/or luck required, the greatest accomplishment in golf is making a hole-in-one. The challenge of making a hole-in-one has made hole-in-one contests at driving ranges and golf courses a popular event. Players making a hole-in-one may be publicly recognized and may receive a prize, such as merchandise or cash, or a share of a nassau or side pot. However, conducting such a hole-in-one contest on a typical golf course or driving range may present several problems.
One such problem is identifying when a player or contestant has hit a hole-in-one; that is, identifying when a golf ball has entered a flag cup. Methods presently used for establishing that a ball has been hit into a flag cup include (1) visual monitoring by a contestant or a judge, (2) utilizing a video camera to transmit a picture of the flag cup back to a monitoring area, and (3) utilizing an electronic switch located in the flag cup to detect the presence of a golf ball.
An example of utilizing video cameras to monitor the flag cup is found in U.S. Pat. No. 5,184,824 to Riedinger. The use of a video camera to monitor the occurrence of a hole-in-one is also disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,102,140 to Vincent. One problem with utilizing such video cameras is that a human being must still watch a television monitor with a consistency and alertness so as not to miss the occurrence of a ball entering a flag cup. If the person monitoring the video picture misses the hole-in-one, the use of such video equipment is not worth the expense of installing the equipment.
Examples of utilizing a switch to detect the presence of a golf ball in the flag cup may be found in U.S. Pat. No. 5,163,677 to Foley, in U.S. Pat. No. 2,701,140 to Fortinc, and in U.S. Pat. No. 3,104,879 to Jetton.
Another problem encountered in running a hole-in-one contest is identifying the player or contestant who hit the golf ball into the flag cup. Presently, methods of identifying players who hit a hole-in-one include (1) allowing contestants to identify themselves after hitting a hole-in-one, (2) requiring that each contestant supply golf balls that are uniquely marked with respect to other contestants, (3) utilizing video cameras to document the flight of a golf ball from a particular contestant's tee to the flag cup, and (4) restricting the number of contestants attempting to make a hole-in-one such that only one player is driving a golf ball at any particular time.
The problem with the contestant supplying uniquely identified balls is that there is a chance that two contestants will enter the contest with golf balls having the same identifying marks. Utilizing a video camera to monitor the golf ball from the golf tee to the flag cup presents the problem of capturing the entire golf ball trajectory from tee to flag cup, where the resolution such a video picture is high enough to distinguish two golf balls hit simultaneously so that the true contest winner may be identified. With such a video camera solution, multiple cameras may be required which increase the cost of such a system.
The problem with restricting the number of players attempting a hole-in-one at any one time is that the total number of contestants in the game will be limited because contestants will not tolerate waiting long periods of time between chances to make a hole-in-one. If the total number of contestants is limited, providing such a hole-in-one contest may not be economically feasible.
Another problem which may occur during a hole-in-one contest is that play must usually be halted while someone removes a winning golf ball from the target flag cup. One solution to the problem of retrieving a golf ball without interrupting play involves the use of ball return systems connected to the flag cup. Examples of such ball return systems are disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,599,980 to Harmond et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,184,824 to Riedinger, in U.S. Pat. No. 2,701,140 to Fortinc, and in U.S. Pat. No. 5,219,161. However, such prior art ball return systems have problems and may not be designed specifically to solve problems arising in conducting a hole-in-one contest.
For example, many prior art ball return systems utilize gravitational force to move golf balls from the flag cup to a collection area. Such gravity operated systems require that all collection tubes or conduits maintain a downward slope from the flag cup to the collection point. This requirement means that the flag cup must be located at a higher elevation than the collection point. Many times the terrain of property available for building a driving range does not permit the installation of such a gravity return system. And if the terrain permits a gravity return system, the slope of the ball return tube or conduit must be carefully monitored and maintained during installation of such a ball return tube or conduit. This increases the cost and complexity of the installation.
Another problem with prior art ball retrieval systems is that they tend to become obstructed by foreign objects in the ball return tube or conduit. For example, rocks, dirt, plant material, or small animals and insects may enter the ball return tube or conduit and prevent the golf ball from moving from the flag cup to the collection area.
Many prior art ball return systems utilize a single tube or conduit to collect golf balls from more than one flag cup and deliver such golf balls to a central collection area. With such a system, golf balls hit into different flag cups may be commingled in the ball return tubes or conduit so that the golf ball entering one flag cup cannot be distinguished from a golf ball entering a second flag cup. If the hole-in-one contest offers different rewards or prizes for golf balls entering different flag cups, then two contestants hitting golf balls into two different flag cups may not be identified according to which contestant hit the golf ball into a particular flag cup. Thus, confusion may arise in awarding prizes having different values to two contestants who hit the golf ball into two different flag cups which require different levels of skill to make a hole-in-one.